UN v. NRA
Seems the UN is pushing this global arms bogeyman again:
Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide, in a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association.
In what U.N. officials say is an “overwhelming” response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. There’s an “extremely urgent” need for controls on the international gun trade, says Kenya, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa.
But in the U.S., the NRA says it sees a creeping attempt to limit civilian gun ownership within nations — even though the focus now is on setting standards for arms exports and imports.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Is this one of the reasons foreign troops are being based and deployed here..while ours are in over 100+ countries? Foreign troops would be more amenable to enforcing UN gun control here, with guns, of course…against “domestic terrorists”, “insurgents” and “militias” who refused to give up their guns. That would probably only happen with a declaration of martial law, but we all know, “that can’t happen here…..”
October 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Didn’t Japan once before try to disarm us? Like about 07Dec41? why, I believe they did!
Disarmers intentions are no better now than they were then.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“…guns-besieged Africa.”?
That should read, “…tyranny besieged Africa.”
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
straightarrow,
Yes, Japan could have actually invaded the U.S. mainland after destroying most of our fleet at Pearl Harbor. It was later admitted that the presence of an armed citizenry, i.e. a “militia” was a big factor in them not attempting that. But today, an armed citizenry and, especially an American “militia”, is considered a threat by many of our own politicians…same as it was by the Japanese Empire military in 1941.